Wow, what a list! First shaved beavers, then breasts
and tits, now big penises. So now the P.I.E.'s were
tall, fair, dolichocephalic AND dolichophallic!
--- In
cybalist@yahoogroups.com, "aquila_grande" <aquila_grande@...>
wrote:
> This is not a joke, neither is it an attempt to be obscene:
>
> What i am thinking is this: In many populations having a big or
> long penis is something very attractive.
So far I'm in full agreement with you!
> Furthermore: In ancient populations telling everyone how big and
> effective penis one has, probably was not regarded obscene as it
> is in western populations nowadays.
Ever been to L.A. or San Francisco?
> Therefore, I think there is a great posibility that the
> indoeuropeans called themselves something meaning "the
> long-dicked" or "gigant-dicked" or something simular.
I think you're really stretching it, or maybe should at
least consider having it stretched.
> ... does anyone have a suggestion?
Turn off your email filters and by tomorrow you'll have
a dozen offers in your mailbox for products claiming to
do just this trick. But seriously, even if it were true
that as many as 10% of all ethnonyms meant literally
"big-dicked", and I don't think it is, that would still
make it much more unlikely than likely that the Proto-
Indo-Europeans called themselves this. In any case,
what makes you think they had big penises? For all we
know they were unusually small. If however your basis
for this idea is your own "Indo-European" identity and
"personal measurement", then please email me privately
at
liberty@... . Your pictures get mine.
David
P.S. If the Proto-Indo-Europeans _did_ have tiny ones,
then I think they must have only been my _linguistic_,
but not _genetic_, ancestors! ;-)